People v. Santana

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santana

48 A.D.3d 286, 852 N.Y.S.2d 73

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 14, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 A.D.3d 286 (People v. Santana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Santana, 48 A.D.3d 286, 852 N.Y.S.2d 73 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret Clancy, J.), rendered February 23, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of five counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

Testimony regarding a narcotics sale by a codefendant in defendant’s presence did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The evidence in question was relevant to a conspiracy count in the indictment that was still pending at that point in the trial, and evidence of the codefendant’s conduct was not prejudicial to defendant (see People v Delacruz, 24 AD3d 109 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 775 [2006]). Furthermore, the court’s limiting instruction was sufficient to prevent any possibility of prejudice.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret Clancy, J.), rendered February 23, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of five counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

Testimony regarding a narcotics sale by a codefendant in defendant’s presence did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The evidence in question was relevant to a conspiracy count in the indictment that was still pending at that point in the trial, and evidence of the codefendant’s conduct was not prejudicial to defendant (see People v Delacruz, 24 AD3d 109 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 775 [2006]). Furthermore, the court’s limiting instruction was sufficient to prevent any possibility of prejudice.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 286, 852 N.Y.S.2d 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santana-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack